The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[rah]

Maybe you can quote where I accused you of this?

Having a mind open to murder is not really a virtue.

Is a pretty obvious implication. I called the guy a scum in the exact next sentence but you focused on my open minded comment.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The real question is, do you support 'stand your ground' laws?

Because no matter how you slice it this event is a natural outcome of stand your ground laws. After Zimmerman there's no way to claim ignorance about this being a natural outcome of stand your ground laws.

 

[rah]

In theory, I can, almost, but as you've stated after seeing how it's applied I can give an answer of absolutely not. But when it crosses the line to actual self defense is still gray.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In theory, I can, almost, but as you've stated after seeing how it's applied I can give an answer of absolutely not. But when it crosses the line to actual self defense is still gray.

That's the problem. "Self defense," as a legal argument, is nothing new. It just didn't used to be grey. If you could convince a jury that you made reasonable efforts to avoid killing someone, great. If you couldn't, too bad. "Stand your ground" is very effectively a license to kill.

 

[rah]

I couldn't agree more. That's why you have to be able to convince a jury. But sometimes that jury isn't as smart as I'd like them to be.

 

[metalhead]

And then 200+ years of application happened.

Firearm laws have been almost exclusively the purview of states and municipalities for the entirety of American history. The application of the 2nd Amendment up until 2008 has been Congress leaving the issue up to the states, many of which have some version of the right in their own state constitutions.

Nowhere in any of that 200+ years of application has the 2nd Amendment been described or understood as more than what it says - that the right being conferred is understood as protecting people's keeping of ordinary, every day firearms such as one could bring and use if a militia were to be formed.

Which also doesn't preclude asking the question - does the Framers' intent connecting the right to keep and bear arms to militia service mean that if that purpose becomes frustrated once militias are no longer a "thing," that we could abolish the 2nd Amendment and not be subverting their intent? Seems a fair question, no?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I couldn't agree more. That's why you have to be able to convince a jury. But sometimes that jury isn't as smart as I'd like them to be.

Unfortunately, when the law says "if you 'fear for your life' then shooting whoever you are afraid of is legal" there isn't much a jury can do, even a smart jury. There is no way, legally, to argue with a person who says "yes, at the time I was afraid for my life." No witnesses or evidence can ever contradict that statement.

 

[Farm Boy]

There's an amendment process, yes. Also more than 200 years of weight behind Americans possessing the right to keep small arms in application. Also true.

For the militia question I find it irrelevant. Groups of loosely organized people with guns are still extremely dangerous even in the 21st, which is the point of a militia. Being loosely organized and dangerous while mostly doing other stuff. It's sort of like interpreting unreasonable search and seizure to only apply to physical hard copies of paper or some other bumpkis. Sure, there's an argument to be had, but I'm not particularly into entertaining it.

 

[Lexicus]

Is a pretty obvious implication. I called the guy a scum in the exact next sentence but you focused on my open minded comment.

Oh, so now we're going with "obvious implications." What do you think the "obvious implication" of your "open minded comment" is?

 

[Sommerswerd]

If she didn't want to get shot, she shouldn't have been living in a city with a police force well regulated militia. She knew the score and was responsible for her actions.

FTFY

 

[rah]

The obvious implication of my open minded comment was just that. I wanted to keep an open mind while waiting for all the information, and after hearing about his history, that was enough to determine his probable intent and label him a scum. Pretty clear to me. But I'm not going to play word games with you since I know you knew what i meant but like to jab anyway. You always admit you're over the top and while I usually enjoy the show, I took offense this time. Clear?

 

[Lexicus]

since I know you knew what i meant but like to jab anyway.

No, honestly, what I thought you meant was "when I heard that the shooter was pushed to the ground I was ready to at least tacitly approve of his actions".

 

[rah]

Unfortunately, when the law says "if you 'fear for your life' then shooting whoever you are afraid of is legal" there isn't much a jury can do, even a smart jury. There is no way, legally, to argue with a person who says "yes, at the time I was afraid for my life." No witnesses or evidence can ever contradict that statement.

Afraid is gray and just that shouldn't be enough. If a guy is standing in front of me and threatening me with a gun, I'm afraid. If a 6'6" man is yelling in my face, I'm afraid. Two totally different examples but both of which leads to fear. I don't know the best solution but the current one in Florida is certainly not it.

 

[rah]

No, honestly, what I thought you meant was "when I heard that the shooter was pushed to the ground I was ready to at least tacitly approve of his actions".

I've always given you more credit than that but I guess I won't in the future so I'll admit maybe adding calling him a SCUM didn't make it as clear as I thought it was.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Afraid is gray and just that shouldn't be enough. If a guy is standing in front of me and threatening me with a gun, I'm afraid. If a 6'6" man is yelling in my face, I'm afraid. Two totally different examples but both of which leads to fear. I don't know the best solution but the current one in Florida is certainly not it.

If a guy is standing in front of you threatening you with bodily harm (gun, size, other factors actually not an issue) then under rational law the question becomes "did you try to get out of that situation by reasonable means before you opted for deadly force?" That's a question that can be answered, and the answer confirmed or contradicted by witnesses and evidence.

 

[rah]

Sorry, I'm 6'3" so size is an issue of what amount of fear I would feel.

Just what is reasonable means? If a gun is involved, running away(turning your back) might be really stupid depending on his intent. That intent may be almost impossible to quantify or prove in court. I think we're in reasonable agreement but may just be splitting hairs on the exact definition. Fortunately I've never handled a loaded weapon outside of a firing range so I've never had to make that decision or live with the results.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry, I'm 6'3" so size is an issue of what amount of fear I would feel.

Just what is reasonable means? If a gun is involved, running away(turning your back) might be really stupid depending on his intent. That intent may be almost impossible to quantify or prove in court. I think we're in reasonable agreement but may just be splitting hairs on the exact definition. Fortunately I've never handled a loaded weapon outside of a firing range so I've never had to make that decision or live with the results.

"Just what is reasonable means?"

Another legitimate question that can be legitimately answered.

That's how laws need to be crafted, so they present questions that can be answered and those answers can be weighed by a judge or jury. As soon as you introduce "felt fear" into the situation the law is useless. NO ONE can say whether or not the shooter 'feared for their life' EXCEPT the shooter...and we can safely predict what they are going to say, no matter what the truth might be.

 

[rah]

Yeah, have to agree but can the law be crafted perfectly? And even if it could, are out legislators up to the challenge?

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, have to agree but can the law be crafted perfectly? And even if it could, are out legislators up to the challenge?

No, which is why I say take away the deadly weapons.

 

[rah]

While I lean in that direction, I think that would be harder than crafting the perfect law.